First positive step, but… The General Affairs Council took the first step down the road that should lead to its assuming once more the duty of monitoring and co-ordinating the activities of the Council "formations", in order to guarantee the cohesion of Community actions. It will receive for each session an "inventory of the state of progress of work over the most important dossier being discussed in the other Council formations", set out under the responsibility of the Presidency. The aim of these "inventories" is two fold: a) enable the General Council to assume its duty of horizontal coordination and coherence; b) facilitate the role of the General Affairs Council in the preparation of the European Councils.
The first inventory was submitted to the "general" Council on 16 July. Very good. What is less encouraging, is the initial result: the Council kept itself to noting that at this stage none of the dossiers included in the inventory require a specific discussion, which seems to be a somewhat casual way in which to begin the "monitoring and coordination" and confirms that the true problem is not to find new instruments, but to know whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs have effectively the material and physical ability (and the desire) to take to this task. Their specific responsibilities in terms of external relations ceaselessly widen, and will continue to increase when taking into account the progression of CFSP (common foreign and security policy) and ESDP (European security and defence policy). At present, in practice, most of these Ministers only spend a few hours in Brussels to then leave time for the Ministers or Secretaries of State for European Affairs.
The true question. Under these conditions, what is the difference compared to the formula, issued from a seminar by the association of Jacques Delors "Notre Europe", consisting of separating the General Affairs Council into two parts, one responsible for the EU's external relations, CFSP and ESDP, the other responsible for the coherence of Community action and the core of legislative activities? The difference is evident: by retaining the unity of the General Affairs Council, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs would retain the general responsibility for the their country's European policy, even if at present these Ministers (at least, those from the "large countries") will only take part in the sessions in a sporadic manner. The acting President, Louis Michel, explicitly expressed his intention to relaunch the "co-ordinating role" of the General Affairs Council by rejecting the alternative formula (which would. moreover, raise numerous constitutional difficulties in certain Member States). The true question is thus that raised above: to what extent do the Ministers for Foreign Affairs have to practical ability, and the necessary "political tension", to deal with all the aspects of European activity? To what extent, and in what Member States have they the "right to look" over the other Councils, including the "economic and finance" Councils?
First answer in the autumn. We will have a first answer in the autumn thanks to the colossal dossier relating to the "strategy for sustainable development" decided upon in Gothenburg. The Presidency defined an "allocation of work" between the various formations of the Council by entrusting to the General Affairs Council "a role of co-ordinator". We will soon see if it wants and can play this role.
Unacceptable drift. The deepening and testimonies over the events in Genoa on the sidelines of the G8 Summit confirm the existence of serious occurrence of abuse by the forces of law and order against not only the rioters and violent fringes, but against peaceful demonstrators and representatives from the press. These abuses provoke a feeling of bitterness and indignation from two points of view: for the violence against victims and for the combination that resulted, in public opinion, between the "urban guerrilla" aspects (unacceptable) and the occurrences of legal protests and even normal in all democratic systems. Public opinion gets the impression that the forces of law and order are opposed not only to the specialists of violence, but even to the right to challenge and demonstrate.
The firmness of the authorities responsible, to be clear and condemn the drifts is necessary to prove that the combination is false, that the violent, from Africa, do not give a damn as was expressed by a priest favourable towards the protestors, and that: a) in the European Union, the right to demonstrate exists and is respected; b) the European authorities have the desire to talk with the peaceful demonstrators. This is no way removes anything from the bitter realisation that the true efforts by the European Union in favour of "mastered globalisation" and in favour of true and justified claims from those who challenge is ignored (see this section dates 25 July); the aim of the dialogue should precisely be to be understood.
(F.R.)